## Facts

- Louis Rotfeld and Audrey Zukerman cohabited for about 12 years and died simultaneously in an automobile collision on December 2, 1988.
- Rotfeld acquired two bonds: a $125,000 Commonwealth Edison bond (certificated) and a $75,000 Ford Motor Credit Corporation bond (book-entry/uncertificated).
- In June 1987, Rotfeld delivered the Edison bond certificate to a bank officer for safekeeping and directed that it be re-registered as “Louis Rotfeld, as Trustee for Audrey Zukerman”; the bond was reissued in that form.
- Rotfeld stated that he wanted Zukerman to receive the bonds upon his death and directed that interest be paid to him “as trustee for” Zukerman; interest on the Edison bond was paid to Rotfeld as trustee and deposited into an account at the bank.
- In August 1987, Rotfeld directed re-registration of the Ford bond in the same trustee form; bank-generated documents (including a safekeeping receipt and confirmation) reflected the trustee designation.
- The Ford bond’s transfer agent did not complete the requested re-registration before Rotfeld’s death, and interest continued to be paid to Rotfeld individually; Zukerman questioned the bank about the incomplete re-registration during her lifetime.
- Zukerman’s estate petitioned to have both bonds treated as assets held in trust for Zukerman; Rotfeld’s estate objected, disputing creation of any valid trust (and, for the Ford bond, pointing to the failure to re-register).

## Issues

1. Whether Rotfeld’s “as Trustee for” registration and related conduct created a valid inter vivos trust in the Commonwealth Edison bond for Zukerman’s benefit.
2. Whether a valid inter vivos trust was created for the Ford bond despite the transfer agent’s failure to complete formal re-registration.
3. Whether, given the simultaneous deaths of settlor-trustee and beneficiary, the beneficial interests in the bonds passed to Zukerman’s estate rather than remaining general assets of Rotfeld’s estate.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order awarding both bonds to Zukerman’s estate.
- The court held that Rotfeld created a valid inter vivos trust as to the Edison bond by re-registering it in trustee form and manifesting intent that Zukerman receive the bond.
- The court held that Rotfeld also created a trust as to the Ford bond because the evidence showed a present intent and substantial acts to hold the bond for Zukerman, and the failure to complete re-registration did not defeat the trust.
- The court treated Zukerman as holding equitable ownership at death; her beneficial interest therefore passed to her estate.

## Legal Principles

- An inter vivos trust of personal property requires identifiable trust property, an ascertainable beneficiary, and a present intent to create a trust; a formal written trust instrument is not required when intent is clearly shown by words and conduct.
- When a settlor declares himself trustee, a separate delivery to a third party is not required; the declaration can effect a transfer of equitable title while legal title remains with the settlor-trustee.
- Titling or documenting ownership in the form “X, as Trustee for Y,” along with consistent instructions and administration (such as interest payable to the trustee for the beneficiary), supports finding a presently effective trust rather than a testamentary disposition.
- Mechanical or administrative failures by intermediaries (such as incomplete re-registration by a transfer agent) do not necessarily negate a trust if the settlor’s present intent and actions to subject the property to fiduciary obligations are otherwise proved.

## Conclusion

The court upheld informal inter vivos trusts in two bonds based on Rotfeld’s “as Trustee for” designations and consistent statements and arrangements, and ruled that the beneficiary’s equitable ownership passed to her estate even though one bond was never formally re-registered due to an administrative failure.


In re Estate of Zukerman, 578 N.E.2d 248 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)